The prayer in this review petition is to review the judgment delivered by this Court on 29.7.2013 in O.P.(C) No.3886 of 2012. By that judgment, I allowed the original petition, set aside the order passed by the Court of the Munsiff of Pathanamthitta on 24.2.2010 on I.A.No.343 of 2010 in O.S.No.217 of 2008, restored the said application to file and directed the court below to pass revised orders allowing the said application after notice to the learned counsel on both sides. Such an order was passed having regard to the fact that in order to resolve the dispute arising for adjudication in the suit, the plaint schedule properties have to be identified with reference to the survey records, as prayed for in I.A.No.343 of 2010. A review of the aforesaid judgment is sought on the ground that the re-survey has not become final and that no objection had been filed to the commission report already filed in the case. 2. From a reading of the impugned judgment, it is evident that this Court had taken note of the fact that an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed and he had submitted ex-parte report and that the case set out in the written statement filed by the defendant that the plaint schedule pathway has a width of 2.50 metres instead of 3½ feet as claimed in the RP No.89/2014 2 plaint, was not a matter adverted to by the Advocate Commissioner. On going through the impugned judgment and after hearing learned counsel on both sides, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference with the impugned order. As stated in the impugned judgment itself, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary for effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties as to whether the pathway, which admittedly exists in plaint schedule Item No.2, has a width of 2.50 metres as contended by the defendant or 3½ feet as contended by the plaintiff.
I therefore find no grounds to entertain the review petition. It fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps